There are two kinds of war, when you get right down to it, and the USA has had a little of both. First is the idealistic kind, evinced in that of the American Revolution and WWII, which were both fights to free a continent from despotism. Even Korea and Vietnam can be fitted into the idealistic category because the main goal with each was to stop the evils of communism from spreading further. Then there is the pessimistic kind, like ours with Mexico in the 1840s and most of our various Indian wars from Andrew Jackson’s Seminole excursions in Georgia and Florida to the last major actions against the Nez Perce in the Pacific North West. Few of them were little else than overt land grabs.

One axiom, however, can be applied equally of all our past wars up until recently; war means fighting and fighting means killing. Or, as Civil War General William Tecumseh Sherman once unapologetically said, “If the people raise a great howl against my barbarity and cruelty, I will answer that war is war, and not popularity seeking.”

Americans, like other warriors of days past, rarely felt squeamish about killing the enemy, even when they were other Americans — whether they be “native” or Southern. Save for a brief time early in the Civil War as the residents of Virginia were spared too much deprivation by Union forces, or when Lee invaded Maryland and Pennsylvania, even civilians were not spared the hard hand of the God of War. The internecine border war in Kansas and Missouri was vicious for its attacks on civilians even as North and South played at their temporary, tender sensibilities in Virginia and the surrounding countryside for that brief moment of mercy.

For the most part, our ancestors knew that war was a hard business and fought it that way. Theirs was a war of the head. A war where one and all accepted the dreaded but necessary fact that people would die, even if some of those people never raised a hand in anger.

But, around the time of the actions in Vietnam, things began to change in the larger perception of the American populace. The idea that only “the enemy”, often an amorphous term, should be harmed in war began to gain cache. Fire bombing of the likes of a Dresden or the A-Bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki began to take on barbaric overtones until we have, at last, arrived at the ridiculous phrase â€œcollateral damageâ€ to explain unwanted, but unavoidable civilian deaths.

This sentimentalizing of the victims of war has damaged our ability to fight wars as we should fight them with the intent to win early, often, and with overwhelming force. The maxim that General Nathan Bedford Forest didnâ€™t say, but certainly practiced, was that wars are won by those who get there first with the most men and then to use those men to crush the enemy without mercy. (Grant knew this, too. He lost somewhere near 4,000 men in around 1 hour of fighting at Cold Harbor in 1864 and also was vocal about making war hurt the Confederacyâ€™s civilian population. He eventually won the war with those ideals in play.)

This overly developed conscience is currently preventing the American populace from understanding and supporting the Global War on Terror in general as well as our specific actions in Iraq and Afghanistan in particular. It is also creeping into the minds of our troops and not necessarily to the best end.

This is a war of the heart where we bleed out our compassion, which will all too often be an action that defeats our own and doesnâ€™t, in the long run, save anyone from the extent dangers that sent us to war in the first place.

A school of thought holds that a war should be awful, but quick and done with. But, we have made the â€œawfulâ€ part far too subordinate to the â€œquickâ€ part. We just arenâ€™t man enough to fight a war anymore. The head fights the heart and the enemy reaps the benefits of that battle.

This is a tragedy for our future safety. Should we turn even more pacifistic than we now are we risk the danger of the fate of a pacifist society warned about by C. S. Lewis.

“In the [Leftist] society the number of pacifists will either be large enough to cripple the state as a belligerent, or not,â€ Lewis warned, â€œIf it is large enough, then you have handed over the state which does tolerate pacifists to its totalitarian neighbor who does not. Pacifism of this kind is taking the straight road to a world in which there will be no pacifists.”

So, now we have â€œrules of engagementâ€ that often means that soldiers cannot have bullets in their firearms, or rules that prevent closing with the enemy, etc. And these â€œrulesâ€ pervade the thoughts of our troops to such an extent that it often paralyzes them from proper action.

Such a failure to stark but necessary action occurred to a Navy Seal Team in June of 2005 to disastrous effect as was recently written about in the Houston Chronicle.

In June 2005, on a barren mountain high in the Taliban-infested Hindu Kush, Luttrell and three fellow Navy SEALs came together to talk. Their mission â€” to locate and possibly take out an important Taliban leader hiding in the Afghan village below â€” had just been compromised. Three goatherds, one a boy of about 14, had blundered onto their position. Sitting against a log under the watchful eyes of their captors, the Afghans clearly weren’t happy to see the Americans. On the other hand, they were unarmed, technically civilians.

The Seal Team that was about to hit a nest of Taliban killers debated about what to do with these civilians. Kill them so they donâ€™t alert the enemy or let them go and hope they donâ€™t alert the enemy.

The consensus among the Seals was to be the nice guy and let them go. Upon release, these â€œciviliansâ€ promptly let the Taliban force know of the whereabouts of the Navy Seal Team. In the resulting fight every member of the team was killed but one.

Unfortunately for his conscience, that one survivor was one of the soldiers who voted to let the â€œciviliansâ€ go. That decision helped lead to the deaths of his comrades and one he has said he will regret for the rest of his days.

I donâ€™t want to be misunderstood to be heaping any blame on this particular surviving hero and I am not attacking him. They made a judgment call based on many factors from training to institutional to societal. But his decision is indicative of the general weakness that we suffer from as a society now in wartime. It is far easier to look back in mock disgust at hard decisions made during war and cast aspersions and judgments upon them when in the peaceful glow of the calm and safety won by that war. But it is harder on everyone to try to tip toe through a war guided by sentiments that tend more to get your fellows killed and your cause lost to a more purposeful foe than anything else.

Now, certainly I am not suggesting we just â€œKill them all and let God sort them outâ€, but there has to be a time when we fight to win and MEAN to win, even if that means that some â€œcollateral damageâ€ will occur.

These Navy Seals died as a result of timidity in war, a timidity not just ensconced in a â€œfailed Bushâ€ strategy, but in the whole of our society.

One last quote, one from John Stuart Mill who once expounded upon this very theme.

“War is an ugly thing but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feelings which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.”

We must realize that our cause is just. Islamofascism is a threat to all mankind, not just the USA. It threatens to sweep over everything in its path and it is not a force geographically isolated, but one with a presence the globe over. And to fight this terror timidly will be the death of us yet.

3 users commented in " War Between the Head and the Heart â€“ Americaâ€™s Timidity at War in the 21st Century "

I tie together observed white male behavior such as disorganization, aversion to planning and unreliability, into a nest of adult white male effeminate behavioral patterns that I call the Wigger Syndrome. I believe that this syndrome encapsulates the corrosive effect of years of conditioning on the white male psyche. However, the Wigger Syndrome has affected only a percentage of white males, maybe 60%. With sensitive tolerance, more research and relentlessly tough deprogramming, we may be able to help free some of them from this media imposed psychosis.

I have a Masters Degree in Psychology and I have completed most of my doctorate. I was trained to spot anomalies in groups including group hysteria. Mass hysteria (also called collective hysteria, mass psychogenic illness, or collective obsessional behavior) is the socio-psychological phenomenon of the manifestation of the same or similar hysterical symptoms or irrational/conditioned belief system by more than one person.

I am going to tell you something now that you have heard nowhere else. It is a description of a strange type of mass hysteria that has gripped most white American male civilians. It is rooted in years of media conditioning or brainwashing, that is repeated relentlessly, 24-7 in every television commercial, movie, church, billboard and more. It is a form of Orwellian conditioning that has affected most American white men. It has made them more effeminate, fat, less stable, very suggestible and worshippers of black males.

Most political analysts who are objective, and that is a tiny group, agree that resistnet, for example, is an AfroSocialist group. The white male members are imbued with a strange psychological mind set and are very emotional about it. Most of the men evidencing this new mass hysterical phenomena are not really masculine in the former definition of the term and many women notice the difference. For example women describe such males as “not the type of men who would be protective.”

As a group, white male hysterics illogically feel that any criticism of black groups which are racist, criminal, parasitical or socialist, is itself racist and they will not allow it. They feel it very strongly and argue with a trembling emotional heretifor consider a female trait.

White male black-hysterics are very uncomfortable and feel a sense of fear if they find themselves in all white groups. If they are in an entirely white group they begin asking themselves, “why are there no blacks here?” Sometimes, when their internal pressure builds up to the over heated pressure cooker state, they explode out loud with the question: “Why are there no blacks here, is this a racist group?” You see, on television, in movies and in advertising, there is no group without blacks in it. Although blacks are only 10% of the population, you see them in every group advertisement by public media. Most Hollywood movies now have black stars, so the conditioned white males believe that blacks are here in far more higher ratios. In interviews they have said that blacks are 30 to 60% of the American population because that is how blacks are depicted in nearly every advertisement and all media. Currently the media features Obama in positive stories daily and give him more favorable publicity than any other president in the past 50 years. It’s like the Orwellian book 1984, which describes the fact that pictures of “the leader” are everywhere and broadcast continually by the media.

At the same time blacks are always presented as strong masculine leaders and smarter than white people, in fact blacks are promoted so zealously in the media that the media always depicts black males as the number one mating choice of attractive, even beautiful, white females. Is it any wonder that there are so many demasculated white males who want to be led by a black? They realize that they are missing a certain potency and think that by “hanging out” with blacks some of the black potency might rub off on them.

In fact without black presence and black cultural artifacts such as jive talking, they feel positively uncomfortable. That is why they elected a black foreigner as president and why the GOP has a black leader. It does not matter what the political, criminal, racist or other beliefs of the black male are, the just have to have them. Notice how this genre of black hysterical white males greet black males with great affection and so do their wives. The look is one of adoration. Their most important agenda is black cultural dominance and although you may scoff now, sooner or later you will notice it, unless you are black-hysteric too.

White-male black-hysterics are conditioned to believe that they are “safe” and “part of the mainstream” as long as they promote black influence. They want to please blacks with ever fiber of their soul. Anyone who disagrees is a white supremacist or baby killer or whatever other cross invective enters their fevered minds. They do not care if their chosen black leader is a tyrant or communist, in fact most of the men have some how lost their masculinity and “desire” black dominance regardless of other character factors. This psychology drive is the result of years of media conditioning. When in a self-reinforcing group white male hysterics gang up on a single white man with a vicious result, it is because they see racism everywhere. For example, on a forum I recently referred to Afroracism which is an admitted feature of most blacks, even by social scientists. I was attacked by a white male on the forum who accused me of being a racist and white supremacist who would cause the group to be destroyed by my spreading of hatred. He said, “I am a life long conservative and I have learned to recognize you racists. He denied black crime statistics, the fact that over 500,000 black males are members of armed gangs that control slices of 71 American cities, and other such facts. He tossed them all aside with more and more emotional charges of racism. He said there are more white criminals, racist, serial killers and everything that is bad, percentage wise, than there are blacks.” He was joined by several other very emotional republicans who voiced the opinion that they were “proud to be led by black leaders and in fact preferred them. There is no difference between the races.”

When I brought up Obama, they said:”Who even notices he is black? He is just as likely to be white. People like you hate him because he is black, we are working against him because of his policies. Race has nothing to do with it.” That is their mantra. They deny the very force that has them in its trall. They elected a black criminal president to prove that they were not racist and they are rabid about it.

The most tragic factor of this psychotic phenomena is the importance of denial. Black-hysterical white males deny not only any black culpability in anything criminal or racist, but they also deny their black-worshipping hysteria. Yet the phenomena is so well known on the street, that large numbers of impressionable and mentally challenged white teenagers dress and talk like blacks to the extent that they are called “wiggers.” These wiggers totally embrace the prevalent black culture with its rap music that advocates murder of white males and rape of white females.

Emil Dobrynin said,

in August 20th, 2009 at 7:26 am

Finally a blog is revealing the truth about the crisis of American manhood. Masses of fat, timid, media-stooges, worshipping in a somewhat homosexual way, sweaty black athletes who are the darlings of America’s segregated all black sports teams.
It is no wonder that America loses any fight that lasts over 12 months. The effeminancy of the modern American male is marked by an extreme need to run.
Mr. Miliband is entirely correct. He wrote what many of us have been thinking for years. Yet, he is the only one brave enough to say it. Bravo Mr. Miliband.
It is because of the total corruption of America’s white males, that there will be no real resistance to the transformation of the USA into another third rate, sub-third world, African totalitarian, tribal crap hole.
There is a test that will reveal if a man is a real soldier in the revolution. Ask him this question: Do you recognize the criminal danger posed by black supremacy in America and are you prepared to destroy it?
Most will begin arguing that “It’s not a race thing,” just like the media told them. When they speak like that, mark them down as being unreliable and totally ignorant, therefore useless.
I can hear the momma-boys screaming at me now, as they squirm in their pink panties and proclaim: “You cant say that, its racist…wahhhh!”
Pardon me while I flush the commode, nes pas?

John Stalling, Gunny Sgt. said,

in September 7th, 2009 at 9:53 pm

America is not now and never was a warlike state. Its military gifts have never been…never existed! When comparing America’s wierded out military to real military’s in other parts of the world, I get sick. Our armed forces are a wreck. They are controlled by the mostt incompetent generals ever listed in history. Tactics are old, stale and predictable. In fact any high school graduate can eventually predict every American military move. The NCOs and officers are too emotional. They are cry babies and cowards, mostly.
I wish that i could have served my 30 years in a real military. The USMC is a hollow shell of phony publicty just as the Army and Navy are.
Eat the apple F*CK THE CORPS! I am a decorated , veteran of two wars and several incursions so I know the bullshit and I know reality.
This lousy Balkanized state let the illegal dictator, Obama, get control. So what is worse than that? Its just another item of evidence proving this screwed up crap hole SHOULD fall. There is nothing here worth saving. So dont let your kids join up and be maimed to make the world safe for black supremacy.

Leave A Reply

Username (*required)

Email Address (*private)

Website (*optional)

Advertisements

BloggerNews On The Air

We are pleased to announce our latest endeavor, Blogger News is now sponsoring some radio shows on Blog Talk Radio. You can check our full schedule, and listen to previous broadcasts here, and we hope that you will join us on the air in this new venture.